Menu

Complementarity

At the Man In Demand conference I briefly got into the topic of egalitarian equalism and its relation to complementarity during my talk. On my flight home I was jotting down my thoughts about the seminar and one thing I now have plans to do for the next one* is base an entire talk and group discussion about the distinctions between equalism and complementarity as I understand them.

However, for now, consider this post a primer for that talk. I’ve done my best to explain the differences between equalism and complementarity in Equalism and Masculinity and Positive Masculinity vs. Equalism. My detailing the social dynamics and psychological influences men face in an equalist headspace has been a recurrent theme in many of my posts. On occasion I’ve made contrasting comparisons to Complementarity, but until the Red Pill Parenting series I hadn’t gone into the detail I’d like to.

As many of you have already mentioned in the stories you’ve shared, it is usually the father who pushes their children towards a higher standard of success. This is critical for the child to develop into a successful adult that excels in society.

It is usually the mother who coos and coddles their children. This is also necessary, as it’s vitally important for children to feel loved and accepted by their parents. This shows the necessity of the roles of both mothers and fathers in the development of children. If a child faces only criticism, it may have lasting effects on their self esteem. If a child is never criticized, they may never grow up into an adult.

The negative effects of too much coddling are so widespread, that we actually have sayings that illustrate it.
“A ____ only a mother could love”

To understand the dynamic of complementarity first it’s important to consider the theology behind egalitarianism. I tend to use the term egalitarianism and equalism interchangeably, but I do so because I see them both as stems from the same tree of blank-slate humanism. In the first Red Pill Parent essay I made the following case against of a single parent, single gender upbringing of children:

Parenting should be as collaborative and as complementary a partnership as is reflected in the complementary relationship between a mother and father.

It’s the height of gender-supremacism to be so arrogantly self-convinced as to deliberately choose to birth a child and attempt to raise it into the contrived ideal of what that “parent” believes the other gender’s role oughtto be.

This should put the institutionalized social engineering agenda of the Feminine Imperative into stark contrast for anyone considering intentional single parenthood. Now consider that sperm banks and feminine-specific fertility institutions have been part of normalized society for over 60 years and you can see that Hypergamy has dictated the course of parenting for some time now. This is the definition of social engineering.

The idea that a single mother is as co-effective as a father stems from the blank-slate belief that gender is a social construct rather than the physical and psychological manifestation of humans’ evolved mental firmware. While the foundations of this blank-slate theory originated with John Locke in in the 17th century it would be the anima/animus theories of Carl Jung to cement egalitarian equalism into the popular conscious with regard to gender relations.

Tabula Rasa (blank-slate) refers to the epistemological idea that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception. With the scientific and technical advancements of the 20th and 21st centuries we now have a better understanding of how the human brains of men and women operate from a far more advanced perspective than either Jung or Locke had knowledge of. To be fair, Jung’s presupposition was one that human’s possess innate potentials for both the masculine and feminine (thus the “get in touch with your feminine side” trope for men), but those potentials derive from a presumed-accepted egalitarian base.

Yet still, from a meta-social perspective, western(izing) culture still clings to the blank-slate theoretical models from Jung inspired by Locke and other tabula rasa thinkers of old.

Why is that? Why should it be that for all of our greater understanding of the biomechanics of the human body and it’s influences on behavior that the greater whole of society persists in the belief that men and women possess co-equal gender proficiencies based on an outdated, largely disproven Tabula Rasa model? I would argue that resisting the more obvious and practical model of evolved gender differences presents an uncomfortable proposition of biological determinism to people conditioned to believe gender is a nurture, not nature, proposition.

One of the key elements Jung introduced into western culture’s popular consciousness is the theory of anima and animus; that each individual, irrespective of sex, possesses greater or lesser degrees of association and manifested behavior of masculine and feminine psychological affiliations. In 2012, when you hear a 6 year old girl tell a 6 year old boy “you need to get in touch with your feminine side” in order to get him to comply with her, you can begin to understand the scope to which this idea has been internalized into society’s collective consciousness. So long and so thoroughly has this theory been repeated and perpetuated that we can scarcely trace back its origins – it’s simply taken as fact that men and women possess varying degrees of masculine and feminine energies. First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today. The seeds for the feminine-centrism we take for granted today were planted by a Swiss psychiatrist in the early 1900’s.

It’s important to consider Jung’s bi-gender individualities within the individual person in context with Locke’s Tabula Rasa theory because in tandem they constitute the basis of the egalitarian equalism which feminism and our present feminine-primary conditioning rely upon. To the modern egalitarian mind, inequalities in social dynamics, gender conflicts and economic disparities are the result of a deliberate (if not malicious) intent on the part of individuals to limit the presumedly equal potentials of others. Social ills are the conflict between the selfish need of the one versus the equalized need of the many.

There is very little headspace given to the material, innate, mechanics that make up the condition of the individual. Natural talent, innate ability, in-born predispositions, and physical and adaptational advantages stemming from evolved differences – whether a boon or a burden – are either disqualified or marginalized in an egalitarian mindset. The egalitarian, while very humanistic, leans almost entirely on the learned behavior model of human development. It’s Tabula Rasa, and the zeroed-out-at-birth content of the individual is filled by the influence of a society that is corrupted by those who don’t agree with an idealized egalitarian imperative.

Complementarity

Complementarity acknowledges the importance of the inborn differences between the sexes that egalitarianism marginalizes or outright denies exist while recognizing and embracing the strengths and weaknesses those differences represent.

There are many well documented, peer reviewed, scientific studies on the neurological differences between men and women’s brain structure. The easiest evidence of these differences is the cyclic nature of women’s sexuality (versus men’s always-on sexuality) and the neurological/hormonal influences on beliefs, behaviors and the rationalizations for those behaviors prompted by the innate drive to optimize Hypergamy.

Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women’s brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men’s brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.

Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men’s brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women’s for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.

“If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking. So if there’s a task that involves doing both of those things, it would seem that women are hardwired to do those better,” Verma said. “Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more.”

Ironically, in an egalitarian gender-neutral social order, a college professor publicly suggesting that men are more adept at mathematical thinking gets him fired from a lengthy tenure, but when a female researcher suggests the same she’s rewarded with professional accolades and grant money.

As you might expect, this article focuses primarily on the triumphant advantages of the female brain structure, but the studies themselves are revealing of the empirical evidence that men and women are not the functional equals that egalitarianism would insist we are.

The scans showed greater connectivity between the left and right sides of the brain in women, while the connections in men were mostly confined to individual hemispheres. The only region where men had more connections between the left and right sides of the brain was in the cerebellum, which plays a vital role in motor control. “If you want to learn how to ski, it’s the cerebellum that has to be strong,” Verma said. Details of the study are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“It’s quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are,” Ruben Gur, a co-author on the study, said in a statement. “Detailed connectome maps of the brain will not only help us better understand the differences between how men and women think, but it will also give us more insight into the roots of neurological disorders, which are often sex-related.”

These distinct neurological differences between men and women are evidence of a an evolved intersexual complementarity that has manifested in both the personal and social dynamic of intergender relations for millennia. Conventional gender roles where there is a defined interdependence between the sexes is reflective of precisely the hardwired “stereotypes” researchers were so shocked to discover in men and women’s neural wiring.

Talents and Deficits

I’m often asked what the complementarian model looks like and it’s all too easy to not want to fall into the perceived trap in defining gender roles for men and women as they’ve been for centuries before our own era. Conventionally feminine women and masculine men are ‘shocking’ stereotypes to a society steeped and conditioned to accept the egalitarian model as the norm. The simple fact is that equality is only defined by the conditions and environmental circumstance that make something equal or unequal.

Men and women are biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally and sexually different. This presents a very difficult proposition to an egalitarian mindset – men and women are simply better suited for, better wired, better enabled and better physically capable of succeeding in different tasks, different environments, different socialization, different mental or emotional demands as those circumstances dictate.

We simply evolved for symbiosis between the sexes; the strengths of one compensate for the weakness of the other. Depending on the challenge presented, yes, this means that in our complementarity the difference between a man and a woman are going to be unequal. Much of the gender discord our present society suffers is due primarily to the intentional rejection of this evolved, symbiotic complementarity and its replacement with the fantasy of uninfluenced, independently sustaining equalism. From the egalitarian mindset, the genders are self-sustaining and independent, thus men and women simply have no need for the other.

Though egalitarians will argue it does, complementarity doesn’t imply a universal superiority of one gender or the other. Rather, depending on the task at hand, one sex will be better predisposed to accomplishing it. Furthermore this isn’t to say that the gender-specific deficiencies of one gender cannot be overcome by learning, practice and brain plasticity to achieve the same ends – it is to say that men and women’s brains, and the task specific adaptations of them, predispose them to being better capable of achieving them.

Fighting Nature

For the better part of this blog’s history I’ve outlined the process of how the Feminine Imperative conditions men to embrace their “feminine sides” and create generations of ready Betas. Most Blue Pill men will fail to identify with the more masculine specificity I’ve outlined above. It’s important to remember that learning to be better at non-gender specificity in an attempt to override this natural gender-wiring is not always a voluntary effort on the part of a person – especially when egalitarian Mom and Dad are in on the conditioning.

When we see the recent popular social effort to embrace transexual acceptance what we’re being asked to do is accept a learning process that countermands a male or female’s evolved neural architecture. Brain plasticity is a marvel of evolution, but it is subject to external manipulation and the ideologies of those doing the manipulating.

There’s been a criticism of western public education’s push to force boys to learn like girls – we treat boys like they are defective girls. This is a prime example of not just a social engineering effort, but an effort in reprogramming boys to override their natural, neurological maleness. Thus they become less effective girls because they are required to think, emote and react in way their brains never predisposed them to.

Likewise there is a popular push to encourage girls to adopt male modalities of thinking. In the hopes to make mathematics and technology fields more gender equal egalitarian society will make special compensation and establish exclusive academic rewards for girls who teach themselves to override their intrinsic mental proficiencies and find intrinsic reward in adopting those of boys.

The egalitarian mindset simply denies the foundational truths that decades of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology and anthropological research indicate about our present state of intersexual relations. Inso doing they reject a complementary model and embrace an egalitarian one. Their mistake is presuming that evo-psych necessitates a biological determinism and thereby absolves an individual of personal responsibility for their behavior. It does not, but it does provide a framework that more accurately describes the mental state, sexual strategies and social environment in which men find themselves with women.

When you hear or read the trope that “women are just as sexual as men” what’s being related to you is founded in the same egalitarian root that teaches us to believe that “women are just as good at fathering as any man”. All are equal, but men’s sexuality seems a boon that egalitarian women would like to adopt.

One reason egalitarianism is an appealing cover story for feminism is because its primary goal is leveling the sexual competition playing field for all women to optimize Hypergamy at the expense of men’s own sexual strategy interests. If all is equal, if men’s basic biological impulses are reduced to shamed criminality, if women can expect men to be aroused by their perceived value of their self-defined self-worth, then all material and physiological deficits can be effectively dismissed.

Under the guise of egalitarianism, feminism has effected feminine social dominance for over half a century now.

Egalitarianism is likewise appealing to evo-psych detractors because a belief in egalitarianism should mean that men can escape their burden of performance. I touched on this in the first post of the Adaptations series. The presumption is that if the more intrinsic, ephemeral aspects of men’s higher-order thinking and personal worth is appreciated as a sexual attraction, then all deficiencies in meeting his naturalistic burden of performance can be rescinded. Game, physique, personality, status, success, achievement, etc. are superseded by his equalist belief system and this is sold to him as the new order upon which women should find him attractive.

Complementarity is the evolved interdependence between the sexes and it’s been a responsible element of how the human race has risen to be the apex species on this planet, but it doesn’t ensure an optimal breeding schedule for either sex. So long as men and women are mired in a denial of the evolved psychological differences between the sexes, their only alternative is to embrace egalitarianism.

The reason feminism hates the Red Pill – in its concrete sense – is because it more accurately predicts human behavior than feminism and equalism have ever been capable of.

There are also the studies, which I think Rollo also has mentioned in the past, that distribution the statistical distribution of IQ (or other traits) may have a similar average between male and female populations, but that the male tends to have a larger variability. Of course, these results “remain controversial”…

From the Abstract:
The present study provides male–female ability ratios from over 1.6 million 7th grade students in the right tail (top 5% in ability) across 30 years (1981–2010) using multiple measures of math, verbal, and writing ability and science reasoning from the SAT and ACT. Male–female ratios in mathematical reasoning are substantially lower than 30 years ago, but have been stable over the last 20 years and still favor males. Over the last two decades males showed a stable or slightly increasing advantage in science reasoning. However, more females scored in the extreme right tail of verbal reasoning and writing ability tests.

Some interesting points:
Females have advantages in other areas

The male-female disparity in Maths has decreased compared to 30 years ago, but remains and stabilized (note that one possibility for the decrease of the disparity is that the educational system is negatively affecting the males).

The last sentence is the key of the problem: prediction. When I discovered the red pill I realized that with my previous egalitarian model, I could not predict a lot of behaviors between the sexes. The whole model was full of “exceptions to the rule”. With the RP model, it happened that the exceptions where precisely that, exceptions. Few cases among a lot of the expected behavior.

But I guess that you need an analytical mind to see this is to convince yourself that it makes a lot of sense. I also thing that you need to be defeated, to say so, to have the motivation to break your social conditioning and to try new perspectives. Otherwise, it is like confronting all your social circle, the society around you, and no one would be able to do that, to swallow the red pill when they had so much to lose. I know people, scientists, that are not able to swallow the RP, not able to see the reality. They cannot apply the scientific method, the observation, in this particular issue. So strong has been the conditioning.

@ Victorictor : my experience is similar to yours. I had serious difficulties understanding women prior to Red Pill knowledge.

Now so much more makes sense, and there are few exceptions. I expect some of those exceptions are likely due to my lack of experience with the Red Pill, and fewer will be genuine exceptions because, while AWALT, I believe individuals are not statistical distributions and there are outliers (just not many).

A good theory is predictive and can be ruled out or confirmed by testing it against reality.

My experience with the scientific method helped me to start unplugging. It was very clear to me that choreplay didn’t work, even prior to finding Red Pill knowledge on the web. And then I discovered the Rational Male, which is a great title for this blog.

It is still much easier for me to see how Red Pill theory is confirmed in cases that do not affect me personally, even when I’m aware of this personal bias. Human nature, I guess.

Sure is human bias. More specific, I would say is feelings against rationality (I sound like a fem o_o), which is natural. When you have some emotional involvement you have difficulties with critical thinking and rationality. This is something we always have to deal with, however, knowing RP I found it easier.

The easiest evidence of these differences is the cyclic nature of women’s sexuality

There is a cyclic component to the sexuality of a premenopausal woman, but that component can be greatly overwhelmed by opportunistic libido in a woman. Postmenopausal women can have a very high libido when in the company of an attractive man and there is no cycling component in the libido of a postmenopausal woman.

Hence, the opportunistic nature of a woman’s libido is much more important than any cycling of the libido.

@ kfg : certainly Feynman achieved a chunk of Red Pill knowledge, although I wonder what part of that was due to the “dubious benefit” of having an external circumstance (tuberculosis) remove what was very likely his ONE-itis (1st wife).

“The idea that a single mother is as co-effective as a father stems from the blank-slate belief that gender is a social construct rather than the physical and psychological manifestation of humans’ evolved mental firmware. “
Co-effectiveness is merely the ideologically presented basis for gender social construct. Where one attempts to inculcate and impose a weltanschauung that is does not accord with the natural order, one is forced to rely on ideology – which, in turn requires force to perpetuate in the absence of natural organic expansion. That ideological force is not merely blood, whips and guns – it is also Ritalin, mob shaming and ridicule.
“Why is that? Why should it be that for all of our greater understanding of the biomechanics of the human body and it’s influences on behavior that the greater whole of society persists in the belief that men and women possess co-equal gender proficiencies based on an outdated, largely disproven Tabula Rasa model? I would argue that resisting the more obvious and practical model of evolved gender differences presents an uncomfortable proposition of biological determinism to people conditioned to believe gender is a nurture, not nature, proposition.”
When you rip the veil from the eyes of the crowd the reaction is violent and unpleasant for the ideological enforcers who have relied upon their promulgated narratives to control social flow and bind the social order within that weltanschauung. No cultural Mussolini wishes to end up dangling by their heels from the wire. That subconscious awareness of simmering crowd revolt is the unconscious lever which drives the shrillness, hysteria and cruelty of the feminine imperative in Western culture. It is aware that it is merely a throw of the power switch away from instant and total reversion to men as warrior and woman as commodity. More bluntly, they are getting while the getting is good and that is, ultimately, very human conduct.
“Conventional gender roles where there is a defined interdependence between the sexes is reflective of precisely the hardwired “stereotypes” researchers were so shocked to discover in men and women’s neural wiring.”
To the degree they are shocked is to the degree they are fodder for the Dark Triad Man. Reality may be denied but the levers of the world are still constructed from it, and those who move those levers of reality will ever be more powerful than those who baste in their ideological fallacies.
“The reason feminism hates the Red Pill – in its concrete sense – is because it more accurately predicts human behavior than feminism and equalism have ever been capable of.”
Tyrants hate being stripped naked. It is a sincere joy to rip off the garments and see the shaking nudity.

I don’t think I have ever doubted that women were different (and I don’t know anyone who thinks otherwise) but even so, I am and have always been mystified by female behaviour. One moment you are the flavour of the month, Xmas has come early, and then the next she has gone off with some other guy or is sulking about God-knows-what. Just as you are licking your wounds, she is back again implying that your refusal to take her back shows what an asshole you are. So it goes on. One then begins to expect such behaviour such that when it doesn’t arise (as occasionally happens) one is genuinely surprised as if you have discovered an epicycle.

May be it is different in America or perhaps Americans (in their usual optimism) are more likely to Pedestalise. Game (which I take to be frame) only goes so far.

You might be doing some injustice to Jung (though maybe not to some interpretation of his ideas). His anima and animus are afterall unconscious and therefore not manifested he doesn´t preach becoming nor getting closer the “other”.
I have reason to believe the anima is a valid concept: I am aware of an ever returning internal image of a woman who does not resemble any real woman but does “act” very much like me. An I-would-be-this-if-I-were-a-woman creature. As I understand it, the point is not to become or get closer to that imaginary woman it´s just a mental ,projection of the male self into what the man imagines is a female psyche. In this aspect, I would say that it is not very different from the ideas people have about “past lives”: they are projections of one´s personality into what is perceived as the past/mythology conditions (therefore so many heroic past lives and very few past plague victims).
But I understand that what Jung thought, said and wrote can be completely different from how he is interpreted.

A funny bit (which shows he was not an “equalitarian” as Rollo makes him look): “The women (in America) are the mothers of their husbands as well as of their children, yet at the same time there is in them the old, old primitive desire to be possessed, to yield, to surrender.”

“The idea that a single mother is as co-effective as a father stems from the blank-slate belief that gender is a social construct rather than the physical and psychological manifestation of humans’ evolved mental firmware.”

Single moms do an AWFUL job of raising kids, for a variety of reasons, on a variety of levels. The children of single moms (at least the stereotypical situations, where the children never have a father or the parents divorce when they are young), are almost always extreme narcissists and hyper sensitive to any criticism (to wit: one is running our country).

The women who come from single mom situations (growing up), typically become single mom’s themselves, and when they have and raise boys, the situation is like a TIME BOMB waiting to happen. They also, as mothers, are completely inoculated from ANY criticism in Family Court and throughout society, no matter how awful they are as parents, or how bad their children are.

I wonder when the single, agnostic/atheist, liberal white women who are childless, will wake up to the fact that they (too) are funding the lives of these slugs and their spawn. As more women move up higher in the tax brackets, income and education, as we’ve seen, when are they going to brake solidarity with women they essentially have NOTHING in common with, culturally or personally.

I have reason to believe the anima is a valid concept: I am aware of an ever returning internal image of a woman who does not resemble any real woman but does “act” very much like me. An I-would-be-this-if-I-were-a-woman creature. As I understand it, the point is not to become or get closer to that imaginary woman it´s just a mental ,projection of the male self into what the man imagines is a female psyche.

I agree it is a valid concept and I also have “practical experience” with such internal images of both animus and anima. I think it is important though to understand Jung himself had his anima “externalized” into his consciousness to talk to her, which makes his personal observations somewhat special.

From my practical experience with this (I know both my animus and anima since about age 19) it doesn’t make any sense to connect to your anima though. The anima is for a man what he is not, because he is and should -as a male- only develop the animus. I noticed when I was in contact with my anima it did make me more feminine and at the same time increased my desire to find “my feminine counter-part” in real women. This isn’t healthy at all of course and the RP critique of this is well founded. I think though connecting with the animus, building it at times consciously, can be a source of spiritual strength and tool to develop one’s masculinity.

Last time I was in China I was working with a female Chinese girl, probably a few years younger than me. I would say she is probably an equal as far as the hierarchy of our business is concerned. Anyway, I was just sitting in a conference room working on a project and she asked me if I wanted a cup of coffee. I said sure, and she left and got a cup of coffee for me, not one for herself, and she was so happy to do it for me. I was completely floored. That would NEVER happen here in the US. The women there are so sweet and submissive and Feminine… and Thin… Sigh.

Same here. Experimenting on a BPD chick that, looking back, would shamelessly act in her hypergamous best interest regardless of social conditioning certainly helped me see the light. She also forced me to hit rock bottom. In a sick way I guess I’m in a better place now because of her.

Greater division of labor = greater efficiency of labor. In fact, whether a given society qualifies as a “civilization” or not is often defined in part by how much specialization, of labor that society has.

As for wiring within brains, I must wonder whether the relative lack of wiring between the female hindbrain and forebrain (to use un-technical terms) has something to do with a syndrome I think I perceive: the female forebrain being unable to stand up to the female hindbrain shouting at it. Or, to put it more conventionally, females being more emotional and less rational. Not that they cannot engage in rationality. But they seem to me to less often follow the conclusions indicated by rationality, whether the issue of the moment is weight loss, quitting smoking, or understanding men.

“But they seem to me to less often follow the conclusions indicated by rationality, whether the issue of the moment is weight loss, quitting smoking, or understanding men.”

It could be argues that what you see as “irrational” in women, is actually quite rational decisions on their part, if viewed from a female mental point of origin. Hopelessly hypergamous who posts here is an example of this. Having 5 husbands seems irrational.

But she still had 5 husbands. She still had men pining over her. In her mind she traded up from each one, so how was that not rational? I think she is still in her 30’s as well, so the ride ain’t over yet.

Will those decisions seem rational in 10-15 years when she is invisible to men? No, but they are rational now.

I would also argue that being more “emotional” is a perfectly rational complementary counter to men’s logic and reason. What’s the best way to confuse, and therefore hopefully control, someone who is logical? Be illogical and irrational.

That’s why I try to speak to women with “emotion” instead of logic, it confuses them, because most men use logic and rational explanations.

To be quite honest, a rational woman is hell on earth. Hate it. Can’t stand a woman that even comes close to having the rational logic of a man of my mental caliber.

“I”ll be stoned faced at the sad movie, you can cry, that’s how this man/women thing works.”

Frankly, while suggesting evolution is more people-pleasing than suggesting creation, so that folks won’t just write you off as a nut job Christian, and makes you sound more ‘scientific’…

I think it weakens your argument terribly.

If we only evolved to be this way, then we can evolve right back the other way. Now that we have conquered nature, we can simply evolve to where women can do that stuff too, and the femmes would make the case that indeed we should. They indirectly suggest that their attempts at equalism are a noble effort in that direction, and if evolution is all it takes, then theirs is a noble mission that will succeed.

Evolution is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated on mankind, and has been disproven, but somehow its true anyway just because folks keep trying to say that it is.

Anyway, I assert that if it’s all just evolution, then your case for complementarianism is utterly lost, and the feminists are doing the right thing.

Hopelessly hypergamous’ sudden “change of heart” with her 5th husband, and her obvious insecurity about being left alone, makes me wonder if the epiphany phase is moving back in age for a lot of women, or if she is just an outlier?

I found TRP and your blog a year ago. I am 65 and have been married once, going on 37 years to a good woman. We have had our difficult times for sure, but the past year has been the best thanks to you (especially) and others. The comments on these posts have been a gold mine of information also, many thanks to those who take the time to relate their experiences.

At age 18 I went from a small rural town to a major, uber liberal university.
Within a week, I had a gnawing feeling that things were not right with my new world….the “splinter in my mind”. That splinter never went away, until I found this blog.

I am thankful my marriage survived, but I have to admit that my parents stable 45+ marriage, and alpha father contributed greatly to my own stable marriage.

I worry about my own children and grandchildren, as I see the FI influencing their everyday lives. Thankfully, I now have the tools to help guide them with the time I have left on this earth.
Your work is appreciated.

I’m curious though — you wouldn’t agree that men can possess varying degrees of femininity energy or whatever and vice versa?

This ‘energy’ is applying magical thinking to Jungian theory.

Women’s natural predilection for metaphysical ‘chick-crack’ aside, 2nd and 3rd wave feminism have always applied “spiritual, but not religiousness” to their egalitarian model. It’s what’s helped them embed this undercurrent of feminist/egalitarian ideology into mainstream religions.

Short answer: No, I don’t. If there is a man you describe (and I don’t doubt there is) his is the result of having been conditioned and socially reinforced to repress his male-specific predilections and adopt more ‘correct’ feminine ones.

An I-would-be-this-if-I-were-a-woman creature. As I understand it, the point is not to become or get closer to that imaginary woman it´s just a mental ,projection of the male self into what the man imagines is a female psyche.

I would argue that this mental model is what men hope for the mutually acknowledged concept love they mislead themselves into believing is possible.

The social saturation of egalitarianism is one of the greatest contributing factors to this hope for a mutual concept of love between the sexes (rather than men’s idealistic, and women’s opportunistic concepts) .

If we only evolved to be this way, then we can evolve right back the other way.

This is why the “Because the Bible says so” argument falls in a hole. You just blithely show off your ignorance and expect it to be admired as strength in a place where intellect and ideas are the currency we exchange. A place where debate and understanding the universe we live in and why things work the way they do is more valued than rhetoric and living in denial strictly to prop up our ego invested views.

If you don’t like it, if you don’t want the discussion to go that way, then go back to a church echo chamber.

Any biologist worth their salt agrees with the idea that evolution has happened and continues to happen. It has been soundly proven both through experimentation and fossil records. It’s simpler to say “Successful organisms are able to reproduce far more readily and robustly than less or unsuccessful organisms” than trying to explain all the little cacthes, provisos, and edge cases that come with Creationist theory. Sure, you simply say “God did it”, but he had to do it over and over and over and over again. Evolution’s mechanism just happens. Simple application of Occam’s Razor. Anyone in denial of it at this point denies it by stuffing their fingers in their ears and screaming “LALALAI’MNOTLISTENINGLALALA”.

It’s your right to do so, but it just makes you look stupid and anachronistic even to most other Christians.

She’s way past the wall, so I doubt it’s a full blown ‘epiphany’ re-experience, although her competition anxiety is palpable.

What I’ve noticed, since open hypergamy has been unleashed, is the cutthroat, feral behavior in women late thirties and up has ratcheted up to an obscene level. If they can’t secure one of the few remaining ‘available’ men (because of men opting out), they will unashamedly poach one that’s taken.

Another ‘benefit’ of open hypergamy. The Sisterhood is crumbling… it’s become ‘dog eat dog’. The chickens have come home to roost, HH knows it and it’s freaking her out.

“…expect men to be aroused by their perceived value of their self-defined self-worth.”

So true. No matter how many times or how subtle or painfully explicit this belief is rejected, women still expect men to subordinate their attraction to feminine-physical attributes in favor of some “accomplishment” or other intrinsic quality that in reality has little (if any) bearing on sexual attraction.

The (sinister) beauty of this is twofold: it transcends the AF/BB sexual strategy and it is fully backed by the FI, which includes the trump card of female emotionalism, aka her Feelz.

In her youth, her perceived value is heavily tilted to the physical – and even “average” women get copious amounts of sexual attention from men to validate, but when shifting into the BB stage the projection takes over and the expectation of attraction takes root in her accomplishments and their corresponding status markers.

It is almost like the AF/BB follows a kind of HB/CV; “look how hot I am” (AF) becomes “here is my curriculum vitae” (BB). The dating sites bear this out, painfully.

The lie is sticky in women because it tucks nicely into their solipsistic hard-wiring. The notion that a man – or men as a whole, would have his own ideas of what he finds attractive or desirable are held at bay.

And there are so many blue-pill men parroting back the FI-enforced idea that her CV should be central to male attraction that even when confronted with those fleeting moments of introspection, she will have little cause to re-frame her self-defined worth.

Given these moments aren’t likely to happen until the wall is in the rear-view, ego-preservation kicks in and the notion is further gelled. She would rather be alone than acknowledge that a man might define her sexual worth for himself. And then the FI tells her, “damn right! Besides, being alone is great!”

I meet so many women who would rather resign to the false notion that men are failing (flawed) to see her (now) inner-based beauty and accomplishments as sexually attractive and go it alone (they will even say as much) than to confront the truth about male sexual attraction and adjust accordingly. Many still have physical potential but have let it atrophy in favor of pounding on the table with the merits of their Experience.

Drinking (too much) wine every night with her cat is not just some meme.

I know Rollo has gone into depth about how women naturally conflate sexual worth with self-worth and I do see this as a constant, but I also notice that if a woman is actually hot for a man she is much less likely to lead with the CV and will do her best to show her HB. So there is still this awareness of the truth in there somewhere.

As a man who (unfortunately) gives off too much provider vibe (I’m working on that), I’ve become more attuned to this as a kind of BB tell. If a woman wants to compare resumes, so to say, I assume she is straight up the fairway into BB and is really just asking me to qualify to her. Next. But being in my early 40’s, this is nearly all women within 10 years junior.

My experience with this kind of entrenched egalitarianism produces a lot of frustration. I’m still burning off this lie: “The presumption is that if the more intrinsic, ephemeral aspects of men’s higher-order thinking and personal worth is appreciated as a sexual attraction.” Just in time to be swimming in a constant stream of women who want to hit me over the head with the female corollary.

I had a question in there somewhere but it got lost in the jabber. Perhaps I’m looking for ways to suss out or probe the egalitarian walls in women who have the potential to embrace to the complimentary. It may just be a matter of being the man they don’t lead off with the BB/CV tack, but I think most women do that out of habit, even if I do give them the tingles. And I’m pretty quick to dismiss these days.

Something I’ve been wondering for quite some time…why is androgyny the covert goal of feminism?

It seems rather counterproductive to go to such lengths to encourage Beta-behavior when women really want an Alpha. Is it just a disconnect between what women believe they should want and what they actually want?

Or is it just a giant shit-test that serves the purpose of screening “true” Alphas? If that’s the case, why are they so hell-bent on breaking every guy they can? I have a hard time believing that there are ANY guys that can truly stand their ground in this culture (without some awareness of it or cognition of the greater elements at play); my brother and I were both natural alphas (which led to huge conflicts in our family), but over time, we’ve both been reconditioned by this cultural monolith.

On a final note, I’d like to take a second to appreciate how ironic it is that feminism attempted to rally together against “the Patriarchy.” I feel as if a giant, invisible, omnipresent, oppressive force is really what feminism has become (especially on college campuses, these days).

Both sexes can possess those traits, but they must be learned rather than being more inherent.

Learning still implies a blank slate if you ask me. In many cases I think that it is more like “training” yourself to consciously override instinctual reactions due to guilt, social pressure, consequences, prevailing wisdom, probably a few hundred other reasons I can’t think of. I suppose you could eventually internalize those reactions, but I think it’s more nuanced than “learning.”

I could think of examples in my own life, but it’s more fun to pick on @HopelessHypergamy. After her 4th divorce to her baby daddy, she finally decides to look into why this keeps happening to her. She finds this blog and realizes that she had been losing attraction to her husbands and then rationalizing why she needed to leave that particular man. Now she finds this site and the roots of her attraction are finally revealed to her. Subsequently her rational mind can override her emotional mind. Does that suddenly make her attracted to her 5th husband? No, the underlying instinct is still there but she now realizes that man #6 isn’t going to fill the void either so she might as well work on this marriage.

@Solomon, when I commented on your blog about dread I mentioned that I am not a Bible literalist. While I do recognize the truths it represents, I reject the idea that it is the ‘literal’ truth that fundamental Christian evangelicals demand that it be read as.

I’ve found that evangelicals will adamantly insist that the Bible be interpreted in its most literal sense when it comes to Genesis and creationism, but once they skip past that chapter the rest of the Bible is free game for interpretation – particularly eschatology and Revelations.

Then it’s about analogies, subjectivism and geopolitical interpretations of scripture; not ‘literal’ multi-headed dragons rising out of the sea with a giant whore of Babylon riding it into hell.

That said, yes, it is entirely possible for the human race to evolve in divergent directions as selected-for or not by their capacity to adapt to a changing environment. In fact I’ve written about exactly these social adaptaions:

I highly recommend you read this. Creationist evangelicals and evangelizing atheists are at odds over evolution because of their absolutist imperatives close their minds to the idea that evolution disqualifies religion and vice versa.

I don’t have a problem with training and I agree with you. Women are always going to be, for example, solipsistic. It’s in our nature. But when we feel bad because of something a man said, we can look past that feeling, try to see what he actually said rather than feel what we think he said. Training is a fine way to describe it. It will likely never be inherent like it is in a man, but we can train ourselves to do it.

Conversely, I think a man could do the same if he wished and again, it wouldn’t be inherent to him as it would be in a woman.

While it seems androgyny is the ‘goal’ of egalitarian feminism, and it may well be the result, feminism’s end-goal is creating a social environment in which every woman can optimize Hypergamy. That’s it in theory, in practice it’s a different thing.

The idea is that through social engineering it should be possible to create a state where the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy can be enjoyed by any woman, irrespective of any conditions for intimate acceptance men may have for them. Within this state it should also be possible to consolidate on the Beta Bucks provisioning and parental investment side of Hypergamy due to an overwhelming supply of preconditioned Beta men who willingly participate in that social engineering effort.

Thus, AF/BB optimization is ensured for every woman, while socially restricting every aspect of male sexuality and sexual strategy that doesn’t meet every woman’s need at a particular phase of her maturity. If that sounds like institutionalized cuckoldry you’re not too far off.

“There is a cyclic component to the sexuality of a premenopausal woman, but that component can be greatly overwhelmed by opportunistic libido in a woman. Postmenopausal women can have a very high libido when in the company of an attractive man and there is no cycling component in the libido of a postmenopausal woman.

Hence, the opportunistic nature of a woman’s libido is much more important than any cycling of the libido.”

@Rollo: “The reason feminism hates the Red Pill – in its concrete sense – is because it more accurately predicts human behavior than feminism….”

You’re being too optimistic in drawing this conclusion. Feminist-minded women (including close friends of mine) are inclined to refuse to believe even basic Red Pill observations (e.g., hypergamy): the default is NAWALT, often combined with suspicion of deep sexism. By contrast, the “hate” you describe would depend on recognizing that Red Pill observations are often true — which would be a victory of sorts.

Feminist-minded women do seem willing to admit, though, that the 80/20 rule is roughly in effect re female sexual interest/action. But this gets disconnected from recognizing the related phenomenon of hypergamy.

In the naive excitement of my early Red Pill days a few years ago (courtesy of you and Dalrock), I was eager to have those discussions with my female friends. Now I don’t bother (no upside) — and only go there if prompted and pushed.

My other cautionary remark is that you sometimes seem to draw too stark a distinction between “blank slate” equalism and evopsych nature. In a way, feminists tacitly acknowledge the influence of gendered human nature: that’s why they’re determined to try to reconstruct not merely male behavior but male sensibilities, where the real goal is, as your writings have helped to make so clear, to “build a better beta” (and reprogram naive younger alpha-types).

“As a man who (unfortunately) gives off too much provider vibe (I’m working on that), I’ve become more attuned to this as a kind of BB tell. If a woman wants to compare resumes, so to say, I assume she is straight up the fairway into BB and is really just asking me to qualify to her. Next. But being in my early 40’s, this is nearly all women within 10 years junior.”

Don’t kid yourself.. men our age depend on the provider vibe, to some degree, to get the girls we want (i.e. younger or prettier).

Rollo can go on about the difference between arousal and attraction but for a better-beta/sometimes-alpha type, there is a potentially satisfying combination thereof. We shouldn’t get too hung up on “why” she fucked us. I’ve learned in a short amount of time since my marriage ended… the new girls will fuck us goooood. Completely uninhibited, unrestrained, selfless, balls and butt cheeks to the wall.. fucking.

Why are we so concerned with “why” she did it? Because we were alpha as fuck? who cares? Her true level of arousal will be nakedly on display for you. Fucked her multiple times? There’s no way to *not* know if it’s genuine. The canned rebuttal, “dude, she’s just depravity-fucking you in order to lock you down”… No man.. men our age know when a chick is into it, and when she’s not. Yes, consolidation is probably her justification for dating 10-15 years her senior, maybe even her underlying motive, but that doesn’t negate the possibility she’s extremely aroused by you. The tell tale of whether it’s genuine arousal, imo, is Rollo’s edict of “a girl who wants to fuck you will find a way to fuck you”.. scale walls, barbed wire.. It’s pretty easy to differentiate her passion and her pragmatism, I think.

Does her sexual best with you, her prime arousal, have a limit? Yes, I think it does if the ‘why she fucked you’ was not purely based on alpha, which again, imo, in our case, it never will be, unless perhaps we’ve chosen to bang the chick our age who we like for esoteric reasons.

But NOTE, we *want* there to be a limit. Because part of her attraction was based partially on our provider features, or “connection”, or “chemistry”, she will eventually, when the arousal (hers or yours) inevitably wanes, throw down the gauntlet and try to lock us down. About this time, the sex will not be what it was the first 20-30 times, and we can choose to politely make our departure from the relationship, or decide if we’d like to gut check her and see what happens when we call her bluff, using our RP knowledge, by throwing down our own gauntlet by covertly beckoning her to submit fully (and most likely watching her fail).

This is just kind of the way I see it working at our phase of life. Rollo touches on our demographic some, but much of his writing is targeted at the much larger more in-demand problems faced by the younger men of our society, with good reason. You and I are faced with somewhat of a bleak and depressing outlook in the SMP.. as in, we aren’t going to be doing much with anything but epiphany/post-epiphany phase women. And they *must* practically fall in love with us, or convince themselves they could, in order for them to act on any arousal or attraction to us.

You and I both know that taking the advice sometimes given in TRP communities that we should be going after 23 year olds, is not very realistic, nor is it all that exciting. There is simply too much of a maturity gap. Plus, a nagging feeling of truly being a scumbag, because we know, due to this maturity gap, that we won’t see it through with them. So we really are preying on naivete and youth in that scenario.

I’m not saying it doesn’t suck, but for a 44 year old man to think game, self-improvement, and hitting the gym will pan out to young hotties wanting to fuck him *purely* based on alpha attraction is disingenuous.

To be honest with you, I feel that decent looking men of our vintage with shit going for them are one of the larger problems the younger beta men of the world are faced with. There are many of us good-but-discarded men around.. more than ever before in history (i think).. we look younger than ever before.. and we are the weapon women fire back when the 30 year old males wont commit to them, or seem too immature to them.. we are the real men, and we are an option for them.

So, when the younger dudes drop out, become more non-commital, mgtow, or simply dare to have high standards, their peer-group women will turn to us in their perpetual quest to have their egos vindicated. We being what we are, will likely be happy to accommodate them.. some completely, and others (such as you and me), only up to the point shit starts to get real. But either way we’ve taken them off the market for those guys who desperately want them despite all their bullshit. We’ve given them and out, or at least a diversion.

@Rollo.. didn’t mean to shit on the thread and go completely OT.. but it is a confusing place.. this place razor and I are in, so I wanted to reach out.

@razor.. I’m no guru, so take the above for what it’s worth. I just think *our* takeaways from TRP, must necessarily be slightly different from those of the younger generations who have the real concerns of finding a quality woman to start a family with in this SMP, rather than just someone to fuck, or have a non-childbearing LTR with..

Rollo,
Once again I must chastise your interchangeable use of Egalitarianism and Equalism. I disagree with nothing about what you are trying to convey and have the highest regard for your motives and work. However, you are doing great harm to egalitarian social ethics by attacking a word that means something specific in that context. Having equal rights (which is what Egalitarians advocate) implies nothing about one’s personality, character, or other differences we may have as individual human beings. While I am at it I might point out that a right cannot require the existence of another, much less their resources or labor, but I digress.

Locke was but one (famous) political philosopher in a long chain of them that led to the expansion of liberty in the West, which enabled the advancements in human society we enjoy today. You can go back to the Magna Carta if you like in this regard, or Aristotle or St. Thomas about applying reason to discern facts about nature, including human nature. This is exactly what you are doing in your work, and you should keep at it. But be careful about harming other, mutually compatible, causes in the process.

“It is almost like the AF/BB follows a kind of HB/CV; “look how hot I am” (AF) becomes “here is my curriculum vitae” (BB). The dating sites bear this out, painfully.”

Yeah who really wants a date (job interview) with one of these post wall executive-types? I used to take some minor delight in critiquing their profiles by emails, but tired of it quickly. Most didn’t answer, but did edit sometimes. The result was never an improvement because their ego couldn’t let go of the idea that their resume proves they’re entitled to the best men and the CV and income should cancel out their unattractiveness.

In support of your overall theme. The ideal that people are blank slates (or by any other means, comparable to inorganic matter or bacteria in a petri dish) is to devalue both the value (to everyone in society) and the ethical basis for individual free will.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
— C. S. Lewis

To be fair, a good portion of Creationists would also be regarded as Dominionist, of which many believe that parts such as the physical return of Jesus once the temple of Solomon is rebuilt are quite literal. The beginning and the end are quite literal to them.

The stuff in the middle though, yeah it’s pretty much all about seeing what you want to in it.

If they can’t secure one of the few remaining ‘available’ men (because of men opting out), they will unashamedly poach one that’s taken.

Lemme point out here that due to the obesity crisis a man wishing to be with an attractive woman is pretty much forced to poach as well. I don’t like it, but I’m personally finding that I have to be ready to engage in Boyfriend/Husband Destroyer material with basically every one of the attractive women I meet if I want to hook up with them. It’s exhausting, I’m not that great at it yet, I don’t necessarily like it due to the effort it requires, but there’s no shame in it either.

I don’t want to fuck fat and/or ugly chicks. My only option is taken chicks unless I want to spend years celibate. If I can find a place where that isn’t the case I’ll gladly go there, but it ain’t about shame. It’s just about the level of effort required in a world where 70% of women are fat, the rest are SMV inflated by social media, and male:female ratios are unfavorable to the male strategy.

The complimentarity discussion touches occurs against a backdrop of traditional Roman Catholic teachings regarding the roles of man and woman in marriage and in the church. That discussion informed the development of natural law discussions about sexuality, which are only at one remove from Catholic doctrine. It’s interesting to see Red Pillers getting to the most traditional of traditionalist traditions, but doing so via Jung, observation and reasoning. It’s as if there were something solid to that old Catholic social doctrine. after all.

Not like the Catholic Church at a parish level or bishops/social policy level does a good job of sticking to this, but the more serious and theologically oriented priests, at least the ones who hew to, y’know, the church’s actual teaching and not the NY Times rehashed social justice-ified version of it – that crowd would be very familiar with this discussion.

Boyfriend Destroyer game is nothing more than being the epitome of White Knight, as a PUA tactic. I hope the lay is worth your complete sellout at the expense of your brethren.

Face it dudes, you can’t claim to be in favor of the old rules, promoting their return, advancing the cause of men, and bringing hypergamy into check, while simultaneously facilitating the act itself.

I know Rollo will likely have a choice rebuttal to this.. something related to eat, pray, love.. but the truth of the matter is, a man already invested in a woman deserves the support of RP men.. otherwise our moral high ground is a castle made of sand.

@TuffLuv
I’m not saying it doesn’t suck, but for a 44 year old man to think game, self-improvement, and hitting the gym will pan out to young hotties wanting to fuck him *purely* based on alpha attraction is disingenuous

The best comment I have read, for the older guys…..RM has to be tweaked for the “older guy” and if you don’t think so, you are just not old. The line of “being desired” to have sex, not realistic in a 30 year marriage. After having sex 1800 times with the same person, I doubt any of you could ever do, or want to do, that. do you not think that desire would diminish? Give it a rest. I would rather fuck some young hottie and so would my wife but when we want to fuck it is because we need to fuck…..

From an experienced view my wife and I were very complementarity with our kids. My wife pushed them with school work as did most of the women that were our age. I, as with the other fathers, were there to enforce, when required, that it got done. The men worked and most of the women, when the kids were young, stayed home. Our kids are 26 and 24 now.

The slate does not have to be blank or full. It can be partly full and partly to be written on. That the slate can be written on does not imply that the slate is blank, or even that the blank portion can written on with anything at all.

Good article, Rollo. However, I’m not convinced it has to be one or the other; evo-biology creating hard, in nascent, sexual identities v. social conditioning which is 100% responsible for sexual identity, or lack thereof.

What about a 3rd option on latent bio mechanics? Yes, men and women seem to be unequivocally hardwired differently, but it’s still the same hardware (more or less) that is simply rearranged and powered with somewhat different fuels (hormones).

The animal world has multiple examples of species wherein one sex can step in to fulfill the role of the opposite sex in times of great need. I think it’s clown fish where in the continued absence of one gender, individuals of the remaining gender will spontaneous mutate in to the missing sex.

To what degree might people have such latent capacities to ensure survival in extreme situations? In the absence of men to lead, some of the more capable women might have to. Perhaps this is why cortisone seems to effect them so much differently. My understanding is that in times of great stress, women release greater than normal amount of cortisone and prolonged exposure to such level begins to bring about changes, first psychologically, then physically of ever greater masculine traits.

After all, it does seem as though more and more the genders are switching with boys becoming much more feminine and girls much more masculine. If there is a biological “hardline” for sexuality it appears not to be either too hard or very large.

If true, latent sexual identity alternatives, wouldn’t support the female imperative or feminism, quite the opposite. It would actually undermine them. These are biological safeguard meant to be expressed only begrudgingly and only in response to extremely unhealthy social populations. The prolific expression of these safeguards, as opposed to their near absence in previous generations, would be proof of how unhealthy our society has become as opposed to how they were.

Boyfriend Destroyer game is nothing more than being the epitome of White Knight, as a PUA tactic

… you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and should probably avoid commenting on it until you don’t say stupid shit like this.

You want to expect a communal “bro’s before ho’s” amongst all men, you’re in for a rude shock. Outside of maybe a few good friends, you are competing with every single other man out there interested in the same woman you are. I don’t give a fuck about the old rules. That is something White Knights buy in to. I give a fuck about getting me laid by women I regard as attractive.

I don’t hate the other guy, he’s just my competition. Other guys have repeatedly stolen chicks from me throughout my life. If I’m not prepared to do the same to them, I will lose to them. It’s that simple.

You don’t want to live by those rules it really doesn’t matter. That’s how nature works; no morals, no ethics, just selection based on competition. It’s like expecting the other guy to just bring his fists to a gun fight because that’s what you think is “right”. You can do that all you like, you’ve just got no one else to blame but yourself when you lose and he wins. Claiming he should feel “ashamed” won’t change the end result.

After having sex 1800 times with the same person, I doubt any of you could ever do, or want to do, that. do you not think that desire would diminish? Give it a rest. I would rather fuck some young hottie and so would my wife but when we want to fuck it is because we need to fuck…..

@waco
I’m a younger guy and when I tried to make this point a few posts ago it really pissed off some old guys.

But yeah, I have no idea how “genuine desire” is supposed to sustain itself for a longer LTR, for either him or her.

Yareally at one time was talking about 7-10 expiring marriage certificates, so that the marriage could end without all the drama of divorce, and on good terms. I really like this idea the more I think about it.

Re: married chicks

4 of my last 5 lays were married or engaged women. They were on the prowl, if I had not banged them someone else would have.

Good rationalization, eh?

What’s weird is I have never once felt guilty for stepping out on my wife, but I feel guilty helping women step out on their husbands.

The slate does not have to be blank or full. It can be partly full and partly to be written on. That the slate can be written on does not imply that the slate is blank, or even that the blank portion can written on with anything at all.

Lovely. I think I’ll have that etched on a slate and hung in my dining room…

So, I guess my point was that writing something on the slate that contradicts what was already written on the slate is not “Learning.”

What’s weird is I have never once felt guilty for stepping out on my wife, but I feel guilty helping women step out on their husbands.

I wouldn’t call that weird. I’d say it makes sense.

She had honestly wronged you. Part of marriage is the implied lifetime supply o’ sex. When she withdraws that, you feel understandably duped and angry. Plus, it’s a need for a man. It’s gotta be filled.

With banging attached chicks, you’re putting yourself in the other dude’s shoes because it’s not hard. Don’t do it. They’d very likely do the same to you in the same circumstances. I’ve had supposed good friends fuck chicks I was dating. I’ve had women leave for other dudes who were completely aware of me over and over again.

Do not feel guilty about winning against other men that would most likely not hesitate to steal from you, particularly when attractive chicks are in short supply.

I know exactly what I’m talking about. Go read the script.. A BD practitioner simply steps in and tells her how right she is when she bitches about her man.. that she shouldn’t sell herself short, that he doesn’t deserve her, etc.. Total.. white knight.. pussy pandering.. bullshit. It might just be the easiest PUA method of all, because it requires almost no skill.

RP men are thinkers, by definition, and no RP man can engage in that activity knowingly, without acknowledging two facts 1) he doesn’t know SHIT about her man.. nada.. nothing.. 2) The chances that he in *actuality*, is somehow better than her man, or a better option for her, are dubious at best.

Therefore, he has no *true* justification for playing the game with her. Only his own selfish justifications.

It’s a straight up cheat. Period. You’re a sellout. You’ve also just admitted how hard up you are.

You didn’t win, or out compete anyone.. You consoled and supported her conjured feelings, knowingly and dishonestly. You took advantage of a moment of weakness for your own selfish needs, and possibly caused some real pain.. And the pain I’m talking about is families.. kids.. etc.

If you think that evolutionary theory is wrong do you think that another empirical based science theory could ever be right? Or do you believe that life on earth is inherently the product of supernaturalism?

In short do you believe that a supernatural being created life on earth? Yes or no?

Actually Tuffluv, the best destroyer script is implying that the husband or boyfriend is a very “nice guy” and that she is getting exactly what she deserves with him because she is a “nice girl”, but yet as “nice” as she is, how can she possibly stand the lack of excitement in her life because you only live once and heaven forbid you look back one day and regret all the fun you missed out on.

Hello Guys,
I am just starting to comment after being an avid observer for many months. Rollo and some other smart guys here have helped me/us a lot! Thanks to all of you!!
My personal story is that I am married with three kids. Fortunately, I am married to a (IMO SMV 7) foreigner (raised semi-red pill because of hardship in her country) who is a decade younger than me. 1 year ago, Before discovering the wealth of knowledge in the manosphere, especially Rollo. I have always been very strong willed, brave, and stubborn, more loner than social alpha since I never cared what the hoard thought much (to my loss often). However, I was raised by a single mom and trained to be beta…training that is painful and hard to undo as I am finding out and as Rollo has pointed out. I failed shit tests by simply doing what I did in every situation, going my own way. I escaped into fruitless hobbies and masturbation, and our sex life suffered for a decade of our marriage. Sadly this was awful for the kids (not suggesting kids should be top priority, but one of the bad outcomes of checking out and passing kid raising control to wife)
This year I started to remove the psychological shackles and re-assert my natural dominance, often far too overtly, and am now partially healed. While hardly “a success story” yet, it may be one in the making. Here are the 7-8 month results:
1. We have had sex on average more than once per day, sometimes 3x per day. When we first met we sometimes had crazy sex up to 3x per day, but this is far more consistent. I am nearing 50, so this is remarkable IMO. There has not been a 3 day stretch with no sex during this period. I was always in decent or better shape, but am now in the best shape (especially best appearance shape) of my life. Resting HR in the 40s, 11% body fat, etc.
2. It is a struggle, but I am slowly taking control (the hardest part is doing this covertly…I have always been a blunt instrument, analytical driver personality) of the relationship and family.
3. The kids are starting to get that I am in charge and that mommy agrees…It took her a while to openly agree to this with the kids. She has now a couple of times said it. For example, our daughter tried to take mommy’s side on something and my wife said, “Daddy is in charge.” This was a relief to me as I want the kids to have that stability.

I state all of this not to brag, but to now admit what is going on inside of me.
A. I feel like I always have to have my game attitude on…I have a hard time relaxing and have been criticized for not smiling enough by my friends, and my wife agrees. Part of this is me “manning up” in several areas of my life.
B. Sometimes I fail and sometimes I pass shit tests. When I feel like I failed in the evening, for example, acquiescing to the “I am tired” after she got all she wanted from me first, I often sleep little or not at all that entire night. I feel like I am losing control and it will all come to an end. It is terrifying and I am sure my MPO or Frame is wrong to some degree. comments welcome.
C. I am working on the continuous self improvement Rollo speaks of, but other than physical health (which is natural for me), dressing better, and game attitude, I have not made much progress. This is probably just me being lazy, but please advise if you can.
D. I know I don’t (physically) need this much sex, but it is more than physical for me. The psychological benefit from dominating her sexually is probably a reinforce for my doubts. I have struggled with insecurity since things started going my way and I always have to force myself to separate and do something else. This cannot be a stable state. I need to change my character more in this area to have more interests that consume my time away from her. I have been working from home a lot and this may be part of the problem (too available).
E. While she initiates sex often and does the kinds of things I like/enjoys pleasing me, when I let my guard down for a day or two, I can see covertly that she is starting to take it as a chore. I have been learning to deal with this, but again, I feel like it is a cyclical thing instead of steady state I’d like it to be. Hard work from an attitude, intentional ignoring, etc. perspective.
F. She is a stay at home mom, and is not overboard by any means, I do find that if I don’t stay on top of her (spending, chores, etc.), she strays to less responsibility than she had before I changed my attitude. It is like she has relinquished responsibility and is acting like a teenager (not as bad, but I have used that example with her) unless I reign her in. Just yesterday we got into an argument about her cleaning our (large walk in) closet that I had let her slide on for a week (during which time she spent 6-8 hours with friends during the day for example). At first I sort of failed, but later that evening, I asserted my will again and she relented and agreed to do it this weekend. But jeez, what a lot of work. Any advice?

To what degree might people have such latent capacities to ensure survival in extreme situations?

Yogi, I wonder if this is why they find that men’s testosterone has been falling for the last few decades. I wouldn’t be surprised if women’s has been rising. I know that fans of winning sports teams get a boost in testosterone while fans of the losing team lose testosterone. I wonder if our beta upbringing results in a long slow draining of testosterone. Or perhaps beta’s pass on their propensity for low testosterone epigenetically.

“She had honestly wronged you. Part of marriage is the implied lifetime supply o’ sex. When she withdraws that, you feel understandably duped and angry. Plus, it’s a need for a man. It’s gotta be filled.”

Not to derail the topic here, but this is related to your words above.

She’s giving daily porno style sex now (except anal) Waiting on me hand and foot outside the bedroom too. Texts. Common courtesies. (I actually went to marriage counseling this last year just to insist on common courtesies from her…beta to the max lol)

Asking for my permission on things. Asking for my advice. Compliments. Dressing herself better. Wearing sexier PJ’s and such. Makeup on before I see her in the morning. Making 100% of my meals. House cleanliness up 100%

She’s trying to flirt. She’s trying to joke around. She quit asking me for anything for herself. (which is new, usually its “make me feel special!” yes, verbalized in that way)

I know I made a monster (dump) comment above. I forgot to add what first incentivized me to take action, which may be interesting to some.

She had packed some food in bag for friends of ours. When I went to the door to deliver the bag, I didn’t realized the inner plastic container was not well sealed (and of course she didn’t tell me). When I didn’t carry it by the plastic container it leaked all over the bag and my wife (behind me) was embarrassed at chastised me in front of them. I almost lost it right there, but instead let her have it in the car on the way home. An argument ensued where she took no responsibility for giving me a bomb set to go off.

At any rate, I was the kind of pissed off that doesn’t go away until some resolution is made. The next day I Googled “How to dominate your wife”, which led to several places, and ultimately here. I was going to leave her or fix our relationship; that I knew. That was about 10 months ago. So far, it appears I may stay.

@TuffLuv
“I know exactly what I’m talking about. Go read the script.. A BD practitioner simply steps in and tells her how right she is when she bitches about her man.. that she shouldn’t sell herself short, that he doesn’t deserve her, etc.. Total.. white knight.. pussy pandering.. bullshit. It might just be the easiest PUA method of all, because it requires almost no skill.”

Making complete bullshit up works a lot better when you aren’t on the Internet where some asshole like me can link the Boyfriend Destroyer stuff and intelligent men who have critical thinking skills can read it for themselves and see that you have no idea what Boyfriend Destroyers are or how they’re executed…in fact you’ve literally described the exact 180 opposite of what they are:

“Anyway, the highlight of the evening was watching *an actual homeless guy* open and engage a smoking blonde HB8 on the street. Like talk about Game being the most important thing..and looks not mattering. One thing to hear YaReally talk about it and another to see and hear it for yourself (not that I doubted YaReally but seeing it on such an extreme level really reinforces it). ”

“If the *homeless dude* can use Mystery Method on girls, then anyone can do it. No excuses. It really was something, watching it and listening to them talk.”

This is why I say you can see in pretty much ANY nightclub/bar anywhere in the world a bunch of good-looking dudes going home solo, it’s just THERE for anyone to see by going out. And you can watch these guys fail with girls by befriending them and throwing girls at them and seeing it for yourself. All the evidence is out there infield but most guys won’t go out or go out in very specific/limited circumstances where they’ll never be exposed to this shit themselves.

@everyone else
It’s Halloween weekend. There is NO better weekend of the year to be out, solo or with a group. No one cares about age since everyone is in masks and shit anyway, no one is thinking about that shit this weekend. Every girl in a costume has a BUILT IN opener, just say you like her costume and go into your normal game. Or make up a situational opener based on her costume (there’ll be dozens of superhero girls out, roleplay stopping criminals together, make handcuff innuendo with sexy cops, make spongebath innuendo with sexy nurses, it should be effortless to get into sets this weekend). You can open entire groups with like “man those costumes are awesome” and just be IN a set, easily.

And all these chicks are looking to get fucked. The ones who don’t want to get fucked are at gay houseparties with their boyfriends in matching couples costumes the guy wishes he wasn’t wearing. The ones at the bar are out to get fucked for a Same Night Lay while they’re roleplaying being someone that isn’t their normal “I would never have an ONS” self. Wearing the costumes removes their accountability and turns the night into Vegas. Don’t bother with numbers they’ll probably flake, just escalate and try to pull.

You don’t even have to wear a costume. It’s technically peacocking to NOT be dressed up when everyone else is, it gives girls an easy way to shit-test open you with “Where’s your costume??” or after you open them they’ll always say “How come you aren’t dressed up??” and you just fuck with them (“What? I AM dressed up, can’t you tell who I’m supposed to be? Guess what my costume is”). No one cares if you’re dressed up, Halloween is about girls getting to embrace their feminine sexuality and go act like sluts for a weekend before they go back to their normal boring lives…it’s COOL if you have a costume and a fun party vibe and everything, but you don’t need it at all. I’ve even said “No I’m too old to dress up (“how old are you??” and then I go into my age routine stuff), I’m just here to be creepy and stare at girls dressed in slutty–what’s your costume supposed to be? I can’t even tell lol wtf is this??”

Pretty much every bar in your city will have something going on tonight and tomorrow night (and there may be a Halloween industry night on Sunday or Monday at whatever venue has industry night in your city), lots of pub crawls and shit too so people will probably start up early, especially on Saturday (we used to go on crawls that started at like 3pm).

Hit up the young people venues esp nightclubs if they’re available, skip the old people places, old chicks hate life and hate their sagging wrinkling bodies (some of them rightly so) and hate young girls who love dressing in nothing and having fun, so on Halloween old chicks are usually downers who don’t dress up and just hate on the young hot girls calling them sluts and shit even though they did the exact same thing back when they were young enough that people WANTED to see them in a slutty devil costume.

Get out there and practice your sexual escalation/verbals. Halloween is prime time for that shit lol If you’re single and not fully satisfied with the sex life you have and are staying in tonight/tomorrow, like, wtf are you doing?? lol